THE ANCIENT VERSIONS

OF BIBLE
 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF BIBLE
 Sometimes the Christians make statements to the effect
that the copies of the sacred books written in the period
prior to the emergence of Islam are still in existence and
that the present books are in accordance with them
 This statement, in fact, consists of two separate claims:-
 First that those versions were written before the
emergence of Islam
 Second that the present books are identical
copies of them Cont..
 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF BIBLE
..Cont..
 Both claims are false and incorrect
because:-
 The clear statement of Dr. Kennicott and others that
the Jews themselves destroyed all the copies of the
sacred books written in the seventh and eighth
centuries, and that no copy of the Hebrew version
written in these two centuries could be obtained
 There were no copies to be found in any period
preceding the tenth century
 The oldest copy that Dr Kennicott was able to get was
the Codex Laudianus which he claimed was written in
the tenth century while de Rossi situated it in the
eleventh century Cont..
 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF BIBLE
 Both claims are false and incorrect
because:- ..Cont

 Van der Hooght published a copy of the Hebrew

version with a claim that it was the most correct of all
the Hebrew versions. One can analyse the profusion
of errors that this copy contained
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
There are three versions that are considered
among the Christians to be the oldest:-
• The Codex Alexandrinus, is in London. It was this
copy that was used for the first revision or correction
of the present books
• The Codex Vaticanus is in Italy and was used for the
second revision
• The Codex Ephraemi, is in Paris and bears the title
“The Old Testament”. It does not, however, contain
the books of the Old Testament
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
We can easily ascertain the position of all three
versions through the witnesses provided by history:-
The Codex Alexandrinus:-
 In volume 2 of his book, Horne said describing the Codex
Alexandrinus,
Cont..
 THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS
..Cont..

“This copy consists of four volumes. The first

three volumes contain the canonic as well as
the apocryphal books of the Old Testament.
The fourth volume consists of the New
Testament and the First Epistle of Clement to
Corinthians and the unacknowledged Book of
Psalms which is attributed to Solomon.
Before the Book of Psalms it has an epistle of
Athanasius.
Cont..
 THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS
..Cont..

This precedes with the prayers that are recited in

everyday rituals offered every hour. Then there are
fourteen psalms related to the faith. The eleventh of
these psalms is an eulogy to Mary. Some of these
psalms are false, while others are derived from the
Gospels. The arguments of Eusebius are written on
the book of Psalms while his legislative notes are
inscribed on the Gospels
Cont..
 THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS
..Cont

Some scholars have exaggerated in its praise

while others disapproved of it in equally
exaggerated fashion. Wettstein is considered
to be its chief opponent”
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
The Codex Alexandrinus:-
The question of its antiquity has also been debated.
Grabe and Sholtz estimated that it was written
towards the end of the fourth century while Michaelis
claimed that it was the oldest copy available and no
other copy could be older than it because it contained
the Epistle of Athanasius
Woide, on the other hand, situates it in the tenth
century. He also surmised that this was one of the
copies that were collected in 615 in Alexandria for the
Syrian translation
Dr Semler thinks that it was written in the seventh
century
Cont..
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
The Codex Alexandrinus:- ..Cont..
Montfaucon said that none of these copies, including
the Codex Alexandrinus, can be said with certainty to
have been written prior to the sixth century
Michaelis claimed that it was written after Arabic had
become the language of Egypt. This places it one or
two hundred years after the Muslim conquest of
Alexandria. The basis of his claim is that the copier
interchanged M and B with each other according to
the Arabic rules of recitation
Woide concluded that since it is subdivided into
chapters and various sections and bears the
canonical notes of Eusebius it cannot be older than
the fourth century
Cont..
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
The Codex Alexandrinus:- ..Cont
Spohn raised the following objections against the
arguments forwarded by Woide:-
The epistles of Paul (included in this copy) have
not been divided into two chapters and sections
when this division was made in 396
It contains the epistles of Clement when the
reading of these letters was prohibited by the
councils of Laodicea and Carthage. Sholtz
deduced from this that it was written prior to 364
THE CODEX VATICANUS
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
The Codex VATICANUS :-
Horne said describing the Codex Vaticanus,
“The introduction to the Greek translation printed in
1590 includes the claim that this codex was written
sometime prior to 388. Montfaucon and Bianchini
placed it in the fifth or sixth century. Dupin put it in the
seventh century while Hug places it at the beginning
of the fourth century and Marsh situates it towards the
end of the fifth century. He has concluded that no
other two copies are so completely different from
each other as the Codex Alexandrinus and this codex
Cont..
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
The Codex VATICANUS :-
..Cont

Dr. Kennicott also deduced that neither this codex nor

the Codex Alexandrinus has been copied from the
version of Origen nor from the copies of it prepared in
the period immediately after it. Both were copied from
a version that does not bear any sign of the Origen
version”
THE CODEX EPHRAEMI
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
The Codex Ephraemi :-
Home, describing the Codex Ephraemi, observed in the
same volume,
“Wettstein considers it to be one of the copies that
were collected in Alexandria for the revision of the Syrian
translation but there is nothing to support this opinion.
He inferred this opinion from the marginal note that
appeared against verse 7 of chapter 8 of the Epistle to
Hebrews, saying that this version was prepared before
544 but Michaelis refuted this argument, only saying that
it was an ancient version. Marsh has suggested that it
was written in the seventh century”
 CONCLUSIONS

• Facts stated are more than enough to convince

us that no definite proof exists to specify the
year of the compilation of these revisions
• The scholars have only made calculations and
conjectures about the date of their origin on the
basis of some indefinite indications which they
have found in their books
 CONCLUSIONS

• These vague calculations obviously cannot

authenticate any of the sacred books
• Most of the arguments cited above are of the
kind that do not stand up to reason
• Semler's statement with regard to the Muslim
domination over Egypt is unacceptable, as the
language of a country could not possibly take
over in such a short time
 CONCLUSIONS

• Alexandria was conquered by the Muslims in the

seventh century, in the twentieth year of Hijra.
Michaelis, however, forwarded strong arguments
placing its writing in the tenth century
• Woide's opinion that it was written in the tenth
century seems quite logical because it was in
this century that the practice of distorting the
sacred texts became commonplace
 CONCLUSIONS

• Another indication of this is the fact that this

copy contains three books that are not genuine,
indicating that it must belong to a period in which
it was difficult to distinguish between true and
false which definitely applied to the tenth century
 CONCLUSIONS

• This proves the falsity of the claim that

these books were written before the
emergence of Islam
 CONCLUSIONS

• The other claim is also disproved by the

fact that the Codex Alexandrinus contains
books that are not genuine and that it has
been condemned by some scholars,
Wettstein being foremost among them,
and that no other two copies are so
completely different from each other as
are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex
Alexandrinus
 CONCLUSIONS
Now if, for a moment, we grant that the above three
versions were written prior to the appearance of
Islam, it does not make any difference to our
contention, because we have never said that the
sacred books were not distorted in the period
preceding Islam and that all the distortions were
only made after it. What we contend is that these
books existed prior the period of Islam but they did
not possess an unbroken chain of authority to
prove their authenticity
 CONCLUSIONS
• They were certainly distorted even before the time
of Islam.
• The presence of a number of books in the pre-
Islamic period does not, therefore, help prove
their authenticity.
• The presence of the above three versions in
that period, if ever proved, would only add to
the number of the books distorted by earlier
generations